In the ad produced by the U.S. government to air in Pakistan condemning the video “The Innocence of Muslims,” President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cite the Founding Fathers to convey the importance of religious tolerance. Their theme: the United States stands for religious freedom.

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths,” says the president in the ad. “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

“America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation,” says Secretary Clinton. “Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message.”

That is the entire message of the ad: The U.S. stands for religious freedom in general and in particular had nothing to do with the anti-Muslim video. And it is just part of a larger American effort to stress the issue of religious tolerance around the Muslim world. “We are encouraging leaders — government, religious, community leaders — around the world to speak out in support of tolerance, against violence, against insult of any religion,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Thursday.

Here’s a question: While the president and Secretary of State are sending a message of America’s religious tolerance to the world — a principle embedded in the First Amendment to the Constitution — why not add a message about another bedrock constitutional principle, free speech? The same First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” also prohibits Congress from “abridging the freedom of speech…” That would include the right to make an anti-Muslim video, or create a musical mocking Mormons, or an “artwork” insulting Christianity, or any of the other religious provocations that are routinely allowed in the United States.

Obama and Clinton appear determined to show Muslim radicals that the United States respects their beliefs. But what about also suggesting that those Muslim radicals should respect the bedrock American belief in free speech? You can watch the new U.S. government ad over and over, and you’ll never hear a word about that.

I found this article that tells what happens to a country as the percentage of your Muslim population increases. I would say it’s pretty accurate based on the book listed at the end of the article.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called “religious rights.”

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to “the reasonable” Muslim demands for their “religious rights,” they also get the other components under the table.Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is questioning the priorities of lawmakers criticizing the U.S. intervention in Libya.

She’s asking bluntly, “Whose side are you on?”

Setting up a showdown on Libya, House Republicans agreed Wednesday to vote on dueling measures, one to give President Barack Obama limited authority to continue U.S. involvement in the NATO-led operation against Moammar Gadhafi (the vote on this measure went against Obama’s war without authority and gave him no authority) and the other to cut off funds for military hostilities (was voted down).

Democrats spent the entirety of the Bush years slamming every move he made, and they eventually nominated and elected the most vocal war critic to become president (Obama). During all of those years, Democrats referred over and over again to a line President Bush spoke within days of 9-11 — “You’re either with us or against us in the war against terrorism.” Rejecting that line and the man who spoke it as he led a war for our survival, the Democrats slammed and slammed and slammed him. George Lucas even wrote a version of that line into one of his abysmal Star Wars prequels. That’s how much the left made of that one line.

Now, the Secretary of State is asking Congress, which is mostly just trying to remind the administration that it doesn’t have imperial powers to go to war whenever and wherever it feels like and no matter the cost or implications to national security, “Whose side are you on?” Way to bring people together, top diplomat! You know, they told me that if I voted for John McCain, we would have a heavy handed government stifling reasonable dissent — and they were right!

This obviously isn’t an idle statement, either, but part of the Obama administration’s push back as Libya spirals into a mess: spokesman Jay Carney told skeptics to watch what they say about Libya last week.

This bunch would have positively melted down if they had been on the receiving end of the abuse they hurled at President Bush.

More: Thanks to commenter Black Sabbath –

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
– Senator Barack Hussein Obama. December 20, 2007.

“We are currently doing everything we can to bomb, strafe and use missiles to carry the rebels into power in Libya. We want them to win. We just don’t know who they are.” Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Most of you know that I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake,” Obama said to a crowd at the Springfield, Illinois town square on Feb. 10, 2007.

“Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken and the young lives that could have been. America it is time to start bringing our troops home. It’s time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else’s civil war. That’s why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.” Barack Hussein Obama.

Do you think these donations mostly to Dems indicates how Trump might govern if elected President?

Trump Backs Mostly Democrats

American entrepeneur Donald Trump, currently being promoted by some conservatives as a populist presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2012, donates heavily to Democrat Party candidates.

An examination of his donaton record shows the Donald gave thousands of dollars to the campaigns of Democrat candidates Charles Schumer, Anthony Weiner, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Bill Nelson, and others. He also gave three seperate donations totalling US$ 14,800 to the New York Senate campagin of Kirsten Gillibrand. (The article fails to say Trump also gave $50,000 to Rahm Emanuel)

Trump donated to the failed presidential campaign of Republican John McCain in 2008. He also gave US$ 50,000 to the non-profit American Crossroads, which claims it is “dedicated to renewing America’s commitment to individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise and a strong national defense.”

That donation, made on October 16, 2010, may explain why Trump has been championed by the likes of conservative talker Michael Savage, who has endorsed the New York mogul as a presidential candidate for the Republican ticket in 2012.

Trump was also welcomed to speak at the recent CPAC meeting, where he was roundly booed for saying that Texas Republican Ron Paul, who won the group’s straw poll, would “never become president.”

No matter how distasteful this Wikileaks thing is to many and how much this sounds like a good idea, you must remember;

1st Amendment ~ Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of The Press. These timeless rights are far more important than any temporary problem. If a bill like this is passed, it is unconstitutional. If the government wants to prosecute someone for the leaks, it should not be the press, because of the 1st amendment, but it should be the person that is giving the info to Wikileaks.

If you want to change the 1st amendment, you have to write a new amendment ratified by 3/4 of the States.

Senators unveil anti-WikiLeaks bill

Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced a bill Thursday aimed at stopping WikiLeaks by making it illegal to publish the names of military or intelligence community informants.(So, it’ll be illegal for Wikileaks publish names of the intelligence community. But if the administration outs a Valerie Plame, well that’s OK. No, putting exceptions on the 1st amendment is a bad idea and unconstitutional.)

Ensign accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his “cronies” of hindering America’s war efforts and creating a “hit list” for U.S. enemies by outing intelligence sources.

“Our sources are bravely risking their lives when they stand up against the tyranny of al Qaeda, the Taliban and murderous regimes, and I simply will not stand idly by as they become death targets because of Julian Assange,” Ensign said. “Let me be very clear, WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.”

Assange has been under fire in recent weeks thanks to his site’s dissemination of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, some of which have proved embarrassing to the Obama administration because of their frank tone. Attorney General Eric Holder recently pledged to close gaps in the law that allow sites like WikiLeaks to continue to operate.

The Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination Act (SHIELD) would give the government the flexibility to pursue Assange for allegedly outing confidential U.S. informants. Brown said the law would prevent anyone from compromising national security in a similar manner, while Lieberman said its passage was essential to restore the international diplomatic community’s faith in the U.S.

“Our foreign representatives, allies and intelligence sources must have the clear assurance that their lives will not be endangered by those with opposing agendas, whether they are Americans or not, and our government must make it clear that revealing the identities of these individuals will not be tolerated,” Lieberman said.

Amazon denied government pressure influenced the decision, which they attributed to WikiLeaks’s violating the company’s terms of service and putting innocent lives at risk.

“It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content,” Amazon said in a statement. “Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy.”

WikiLeaks responded on Twitter by calling Amazon cowardly and dishonest.

“Amazon’s press release does not accord with the facts on public record. It is one thing to be cowardly. Another to lie about it.”

Assange is also currently facing a warrant in Sweden concerning accusations of sexual assault of two young women. Assange has said the encounters were consensual and has called the investigation an international plot to stop WikiLeaks.

A well-known recluse, Assange has gone underground, only resurfacing to conduct remote interviews with the press.

Secretary of StateHillary Clintonrevealed frustration at the reluctance of Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia to cut funds to Islamic extremists, according to a classified memo obtained by Wikileaks and published yesterday by the New York Times and Guardian.

In a Dec. 30, 2009, cable, Clinton said “more needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba — but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money.” Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates were also singled out in the diplomatic memos as suppliers of cash to terrorists.

In the same dispatch, Clinton points to donors in Saudi Arabia as the “most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide” and complained that “it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.”

This latest batch of leaks will do little to improve U.S. relations with its oil-rich allies in the Middle East and contradicts public statements by the U.S. administration about the progress made in cutting off terrorist fund-raising.

In a cable dated Aug. 10 last year, diplomats relayed intelligence of how a Saudi-based company acted as a front to funnel money to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group, blamed for the 2008 attack on Mumbai.

U.A.E. Role

The U.A.E.’s role as terrorist financiers has also alarmed U.S. officials. The Haqqani network, an insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan with close ties to the Taliban, received “significant funds” from the Gulf and “are believed to earn money from U.A.E.-based business interests,” according to a Jan. 7 secret memo.

Repeated calls to the Saudi Ministry of Interior and Sheikh Mohammed al-Sabah, the foreign minister for Kuwait, weren’t immediately returned. U.A.E. officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Clinton last week traveled to Bahrain for a regional security conference and met with Arab foreign ministers whose countries were cited in leaked cables in an effort to contain damage to U.S. diplomatic relations with its Middle East allies. She said disclosure of sensitive diplomatic cables could hurt negotiations and in some cases endanger individuals.

Clinton is “literally working night and day in conversations with countless leaders around the world to try as best we can not only to express regret but to work through these issues,“ Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns said at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Dec. 1.

The officer on duty at the State Department yesterday referred to comments made last week by spokesman Philip J. Crowley that he wouldn’t comment on specific leaks.

More about out Thug in chief from the Wikileaks documents. Now we know more of why the government wants to stop Wikileaks….it’s not just about the military leaks. So far the American media is ignoring this story.

Wikileaks Documents Show Obama Administration Used Spying, Threats & Bribes to Get Support for Copenhagen Accord

Good grief.The Obama Administration used their Chicago-style street thug tactics to spy on and threaten countries who opposed the Copenhagen global warming junk science accord.

And, here we thought they reserved the use of their Alinsky-style tactics on opponents here at home. Boy, were we wrong.
(Ya Libnan)The Obama Administration spied on, threatened and bribed countries to support the Copenhagen Accord. The accord would have devastated American business and manufacturing.The Guardian reported:

Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord

Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.

The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial “Copenhagen accord”, the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.

Negotiating a climate treaty is a high-stakes game, not just because of the danger warming poses to civilisation but also because re-engineering the global economy to a low-carbon model will see the flow of billions of dollars redirected.

Seeking negotiating chips, the US state department sent a secret cable on 31 July 2009 seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. The request originated with the CIA. As well as countries’ negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental “treaty circumvention” and deals between nations.

But intelligence gathering was not just one way. On 19 June 2009, the state department sent a cable detailing a “spear phishing” attack on the office of the US climate change envoy, Todd Stern, while talks with China on emissions took place in Beijing. Five people received emails, personalised to look as though they came from the National Journal. An attached file contained malicious code that would give complete control of the recipient’s computer to a hacker. While the attack was unsuccessful, the department’s cyber threat analysis division noted: “It is probable intrusion attempts such as this will persist.”

The Beijing talks failed to lead to a global deal at Copenhagen.

It’s a good thing the US media is ignoring this story. It might reflect poorly on the Obama Administration.
They certainly don’t want that to happen.